Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37817791›Full record

ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2023

Bone tissue regeneration in peri-implantitis: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

Filipe Castro, Ahmed Sami Bouzidi, Juliana Campos Hasse Fernandes, Marco C Bottino, Gustavo Vicentis Oliveira Fernandes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Filipe CastroFP-I3ID, FSC, Universidade Fernando Pessoa, 4249-004 Porto, Portugal.
Ahmed Sami BouzidiUniversidade Fernando Pessoa, 4249-004 Porto, Portugal.
Juliana Campos Hasse FernandesDDS, Oral Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Marco C BottinoDepartment of Cariology, Restorative Sciences, and Endodontics at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, USA.
Gustavo Vicentis Oliveira FernandesPeriodontics and Oral Medicine Department, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The goal of this systematic review was to analyze, in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), regenerative techniques used to treat Methods: Three databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and On-Line Knowledge Library) were accessed, applying the PICO strategy (Population [P], Intervention [I], Comparison [C], and Outcomes [O]), with the following focused questions: (i) "In patients who received regenerative treatments for Main results: Nine articles were included with 404 patients (225 females and 179 males; mean age of 60.44 years). One study evaluated patients after 48 months and another after 88 months. The techniques and devices used were: (i) implantoplasty with Er:YAG laser, (ii) blood concentrate (growth factors), and (iii) EMD, with no statistically significant outcome. Two studies considered the use of titanium granules with a significant increase in radiographic bone identification, whereas regenerative techniques with bone graft (autogenous, alloplastic, and xenograft) were the majority chosen, associated or not, with a collagen membrane. Xenograft had better results radiographically when compared to the autogenous bone graft and presented better results for bone level. There was an overall decrease in bleeding on probing, independent of the control or test group, and a reduction in pocket depth in the groups analyzed. Titanium granules, EMD, Er:YAG laser, and CGF had non-significant results; better results were observed when using bone grafts. The RoB showed a low risk in four studies (44.44%), three with moderate (33.33%), and two with high risk (22.23%). Conclusion: Surgical regenerative treatment was a predictable option in the management of PI and in improving the clinical parameters of

Indexed as

Peri-implantitisRegenerationSurgerySystematic reviewTreatment

Identifiers

PMID37817791
PMCPMC10562100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.